Monday, January 17, 2011

Open Thread for 1st Reading (Marcuse & Butler)

This is an open thread for your first Monday blog post. Remember, write whatever you want, in the form of a coherent paragraph that asks a question, brings our attention to an issue, or analyzes some component of either Marcuse's text, Butler's text, or the two in relationship to one another. Put your Monday blog posts as comments to this thread, so things don't get too hard to follow; that will be the standard going forward.

You can expect 1 or 2 prompts to be posted today for your Friday blog post, with another to follow after our class.

13 comments:

While reading up to page 55 in One-Dimensional Man, I couldn’t help but compare the society Marcuse paints in 1964 to the one seen today. To me, our society is obviously on board with being more technologically advanced, but one key aspect differs. On page 39, Marcuse introduces the term “historical backwardness,” a core Soviet Marxism belief. I started to realize that now more than I can ever remember, we live in as much of a socialist as a capitalist society. While we may be able to choose from say a plethora of automobile makers or cell phone providers, in other areas the people have no freedom to choose, and their dependence on the government is strong. For example, in my apartment building we pay for our own electricity, but we MUST use Duquesne Light as our company; no other options are given. One way the government’s power is shown is when a school does not meet academic standards, and the government steps in and takes over the district. Furthermore, the government just gave Port Authority $45 million to help its transportation funding crisis. Moreover, the lines at the unemployment offices are out the door; more people are depending on Welfare to feed their families. On page 55 Marcuse claims that capitalism will meet the challenge of communism, and I think that America’s dependency on the government proves this point. Perhaps someday the “historical backwardness” will turn around, and capitalism will once again prevail.

Throughout the reading for Butler, it has been mentioned that prices for goods and services are extremely expensive. Climate change has been brought up several times as well. Were these factors the main causes that led to this dystopian universe?

Currently, people have been discussing that predicted gas prices could reach $4 per gallon by the summer and $5 per gallon by the end of 2012. High gas prices will cause other prices to increase because of transportation costs for producers. With the increase in prices, limited resources (especially for fuel), and possible climate changes, could this happen to us in the future to some extent?

One point brought up in the One-Dimensional Man that I found interesting, and never viewed the world, was about modern day “slavery”. That we live in a society that boasts about our freedom, yet there are a lot of restrictions. The typical laborer is a professional slave. That within the factory line, the person is an addition to the machine doing the same thing over and over again and has no say so in the way the work day goes. Also, the continual loss of human input in this line of work will lead to a whole new civilization because eventually people will be out of the factory lines altogether (37). If this happens, the way the United States is run and the spread of the jobs will be completely different than what we have been used too; causing American society to learn to function in a new way. For the sake of human existence though, we may have to forget this new type of civilization and incorporate people back into the production lines (45). If people aren’t put back in the work line, everything will eventually collapse because the money cycle will be broken due to the fact that the average man will not have work, therefore not have the money to spend (36). I also tie this idea to American jobs being shipped overseas.

When reading the back cover to Parable of the Sower, I was intrigued by the idea that the story was set in a gated community. My imagination led me to picture the setting. Fancy upper middle class homes, perfectly paved roads, green lawns with impeccable landscaping. However, to my surprise, the novel was set in what seems to be the exact opposite of my perceived suburban middle class utopia.

This clear distopia was not a 'gated community', but in fact a fortress. Walls surrounding the area are meant to keep people out, however fail to do just that. Two families, the Mosses and Mrs Sims, experienced robberies, as well as other instances in which food was stolen from the community. Occurrences such as these lead me to believe that the walls are not necessarily effective at keeping away intruders, but highly effective at keeping residents of the community within the walls. It seems that very few people are aware of what the 'outside' world is like, and those that experience it often suffer. Keith, the most obvious and detailed example, began living on the outside, which resulted in his death.

The novel is a clear foreshadowing of American society, particularly because the 'social chaos' is a result of 'environmental and economic crises', which mirror our own realistic problems in America. I believe that it will potentially condone the fact that the idea of sticking together in times of crisis is not necessarily an advantageous strategy.

On page 4 of Marcuse text, he mentions intellectual freedom. He says that to achieve this freedom one must restore individual thought from the media and abolish the phrase public opinion. He goes on to say that the idea is unrealistic in the sense that it would take force and the mind can be influenced easily. In today’s societies many people have no intellectual freedom, whether it is by choice or confusion. Media is everywhere today and can influence the mind. This is an innate characteristic of humans. To achieve intellectual freedom by definition is impossible unless in a utopian world, but I believe it can be established by the individual to an extent. The government or any other power should not be the one left to try to clear influences from the mind; it should be left up to the individual him/herself. Too many times a day I see people drawn in by advertisements or just following the crowd unconsciously. It makes me think though; can anyone actually achieve intellectual freedom as a person? Not in the true definition, but with your individual working definition.

I find Marcuse's analysis of the technological apparatus which restricts our freedoms to be utterly fitting for our current state. It was as if all of his predictions from 1964 have come true and we live in the totalitarian state he imagined. He discusses our dependence on technology as a resource to hide domination, because we become modern day slaves to the system but we are accustomed to the luxuries it offers us. We don't have to think when the system thinks for us, and it is easier to accept the comforts and security from the benefits of a day job than to fight the master and return to a system where we are aware of our needs. We are concerned more about the security of our future than focusing on our current needs, and preconditioned when we are raised in this society to believe that we need that security. The technological apparatus has grown just as he predicted and we now live in an age of facebook, cellphones and macbooks in which I personally could not imagine sacrificing the daily-used gadgets. I am a slave to the modern day master.

I find Lauren's questioning of the current state of her society is reflective of what Marcuse is talking about on page 12. He talks about how aspirations and objectives that could extend past the established society are usually squashed into inexistence. Lauren talks a lot about how she would rather die than get married to Curtis, have a handful of babies and spend the rest of her life living off of her parent’s income like many of her peers plan on doing. Lauren represents the minority in her thought process and, at least in Marcuse's version of society, will bring about historical change as long as she keeps questioning society.

Marcuse also focuses on how our repression often stems from our false needs like on page 3. He wrote that our dependence on the products produced by the different companies ensnares us in the thought process that we actually need such products. This thought process was also apparent in Parable of the Sower. Again, Lauren and her father are the minority. Lauren merely suggests learning about different plants and ways to live off the land, not the manufacturers, and her friend is so frightened she tells her mother. The neighborhood's dependence on the producer is also apparent when the Mosses decide to sell their rabbits to the outside for money. It endangers the entire neighborhood and all for money to buy things from producers that they could most likely make themselves. Marcuse’s claim that we feel we need what is produced seems to be true in this sense, and Lauren’s realization that she is capable of depending on herself and the land lends to more evidence that she will be part of historical change.

It will be interesting to see if Marcuse's predictions for Lauren will hold true in Butler's novel. I also think it is a good question as to whether the change will be for the good or the worse. Marcuse focused on the need for change for a few pages, but he never talked about what happened if the change he wants so badly actually doesn't help the society in the long run or hurts the bringer of change in their quest for true freedom.

While I'm currently struggling and having a very difficult time wrestling with the Marcuse reading, in the very beginning of the introduction he makes a statement that struck me so strongly. He seems to say that the judgment that human life is worth living and should be made so is arguable to the point of likely being falsifiable. I may be interpreting him wrongly, and I genuinely hope that I am. Perhaps the factual and concrete nature of his style influences me to assume he believes this when in fact he does not. I'm not sure. However, I mentioned in class last week that the point of literature was to bring significance to the previously insignificant... He seems to be implying that this process is impossible, or at the very least unnecessary.

He continues to describe, essentially, the theoretical argument behind creating a utopian society. I'm not entirely sure I completely understand his "initial abstractions," but his attempt to identify the realistic possibilities of establishing utopian-type society is puzzling. It seems to contradict itself; the utopian or ideal is by definition not realistic. Perhaps I'm just taking certain statements far out of context or misunderstanding, but I'm puzzled.

I found Marcuse's observation about the inherent "unfreedom" in society particularly striking. He makes the point that the consumerist nature of society negates any form of democracy in so far as the few in control create the choices for us to consume. In a lot of ways this is descriptive of the United States "democracy" in that the few viable candidates we are presented with are products of a very select group of major corporations. Even in the realm of politics it seems we cannot achieve actual freedom without uprooting what we've been predisposed to believe we need.

One of the arguments I found most interesting in One-Dimensional Man was the discussion of “backwards” or colonial societies on pages 45 through 48. I found it interesting because so much of what he states proves to be true in the decades after the book was initially published. For example, his argument that “the backward areas are likely to succumb either to one if the various forms of neo-colonialism, or to a more or less terroristic system of primary accumulation” can easily be applied to most modern African countries that were colonized by the British of French. Because the early technology that was implemented in these countries was aimed at serving the needs of the colonial powers, when the African nations became independent they were still forced to rely heavily on Europe for assistance with technology and trade. I also agree with the second part of his argument that there is (or was) the possibility of an indigenous system of technology arising from Third World nations who reject both capitalism and socialism and look within for means of development. I also agree, however, with his opinion that this is highly unlikely to happen because old colonial powers would be extremely hesitant to break all ties with their former colonies. This was especially true during the Cold War as both East and West were competing for alliances with Third World countries. I personally believe that this was one of the more damaging effects of the Cold War, as many African nations were not allowed to develop organically because of pressures from the US or the USSR. Many nations faced years of repressive regimes that did little for the countries but which were able to remain in power because of support from one of the two superpowers.

Marcuse brought to my attention a notion of systematic control (by his societal machine, as I will call it) that I never considered, or at least never considered to be happening around me. He presents this idea that this machine can create universal needs throughout the society and enslave its members, making them feel like they are in control. Reading about such massive brainwashing forces me to ask the question, is this happening in our world? As I read the text, I grew tired of the constant flow of conspiracy theories, and none the less, began to think he had a point. He points out the market’s ability to render us slaves to their brands, fads, and social objects; synthetic needs. We have, like the people in his hypothetical world, accepted these created needs and believe we should need them, i.e., generic brands. The fact that a product is burdened a degrading label because it is not “main-stream” proves that we are geared towards social norms, their social norms. So, how about that freedom we boast about all the time? Marcuse says our so called freedom is as false as those needs created by the machine. What makes it worse is that we have accepted them. We fell for it. We see our freedom given to us in choices; choices allowed by the government; options that were passed through politicians and lobbyists; options that were installed through, as Marcuse pointed out, “countervailing powers”. The FDA, EPA, Office of Censorship, and the US Customs and Border Control are all examples of agencies put in place to control what our options are. Marcuse may have been exaggerating when he said that people would be all but useless to a mechanized, well-oiled machine, but he made it clear how we could quickly turn into a society like that of Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’.To draw a comparison of the two books we are reading I would like to point out the needs Marcuse claims society makes and the needs that Olivar (from Butler) is capitalizing on. While there is a distinct difference in the two worlds that are written about, it is easy to see that, given dire or privileged circumstances, the corporate sector can and will become a slave owner. In our own world we see this in much milder forms throughout, in the form of adverse brand-loyalty and the ability of a company (oh, say, GlaxoSmithKline) to turn a profit off killing people. In summation, freedom is not defined by the ability to make choices from options presented to you, it is certainly something more.

Having read One-Dimensional Man first, I tried to read Parable through Marcuse's eyes. Obviously, Butler's work is an extreme exaggeration of America's quickly declining economical and governmental issues, but at the same time it acts as one giant example of Marcuse's prediction of our future (except with a larger emphasis on religion). For example, on page 11, Marcuse exclaims that alienated subjects can only become consumed in their alienated existence; this is something the people of Robledo tried to do by walling themselves into a fortress and alienating themselves from the underprivileged world outside. As both Butler and human nature show, that society didn't last long as the outer world slowly deteriorated its neutrality.

Butler then throws in another variable in chapter 11, where he introduces KSF, a private international company that drafts people to work manual labor jobs in exchange for modest pay and safety... That sounds a lot like modern-day slavery to me. Then again, one of the first things Marcuse states is that an individual that is liberated from alien needs can be free to exert autonomy over a life that would be his own (pg 2). After all, a job is just a job. This definitely brings up a question in my head: can one better exert his or her autonomy in a stable and equal environment (like the one run by the KSF) or one with the freedom to pave one's own beliefs, but with the constant burden of survival (the path Lauren ultimately chooses)?